Muhammad v. Gibson

• Decision Date: 18 October 2022
• Docket Number: 2:21-cv-4165
• Parties: HANEEF MUHAMMAD Plaintiff, v. OFFICER SCOTT P. GIBSON, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

1

HANEEF MUHAMMAD Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER SCOTT P. GIBSON, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-4165

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

October 18, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and Allow Witness Statement (ECF No. 43); Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 45); Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 46 and 51); Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44); Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68); Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69); Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference (ECF No. 76); Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC's (“Lowe's”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 56); Defendant Lowe's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Dispositive Motions (ECF No. 72); Defendant Scott P. Gibson's (“Officer Gibson”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60); and Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike Witness Statement (ECF Nos. 39 and 47).

For the following reasons, Defendant Lowe's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; Defendant Officer Gibson's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment, Amend Summary Judgment and for Partial Summary Judgment are DENIED; Defendant Lowe's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Dispositive Motions is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and Allow Witness Statement is

2

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Counsel is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference is DENIED AS MOOT; and Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike Witness Statement is DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this case following several interactions with a police officer working a special duty assignment at Lowe's. As discussed more fully below, the actions of both the special duty police officer and Lowe's do not give rise to any violations of the Constitution or state law. The uncontroverted record, which includes a number of Plaintiff's own admissions, reveals that at all relevant times to this action, Defendants never detained or arrested Plaintiff, and they never interfered with his ability to shop freely at Lowe's. While Plaintiff subjectively felt uncomfortable in the presence of the special duty police officer, avoidance of this discomfort is neither protected by the U.S. Constitution nor state law. This Court accordingly grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a series of incidents between Plaintiff Haneef Muhammad (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Columbus Police Officer, Scott P. Gibson (“Officer Gibson”), taking place primarily at Defendant Lowe's retail store located at 3899 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio (the “Store”). The Court will first address the relationship between Officer Gibson and Lowe's before turning to the incidents giving rise to Plaintiff's claims.

A. The Relationship Between the Defendants.

Defendant Officer Gibson is a 25-year veteran of the Columbus Police Department, and he was a member of the police department's Special Duty unit at all times relevant to this action. (Gibson Dep., ECF No. 56-1, PageID 1167.) As part of his work with the special duty unit, Officer

3

Gibson was assigned to the Store beginning in 2017, though he had worked special duty assignments throughout his career. (Id. at PageID 1167, 1173.)

As an officer assigned to the Store, Officer Gibson is considered an “on duty” police officer, retaining all the powers and authority emanating from that position. (Id. at PageID 117374.) At the Store, his role is to deter theft and assist Lowe's employees and customers. (Id. at PageID 1167, 1174.) For example, and as testified to by Officer Gibson, if a Lowe's employee indicates to Officer Gibson that he or she suspects a customer of shoplifting, Officer Gibson independently investigates the claim. (Id. at PageID 1174.) Officer Gibson testified that he does not detain or arrest suspected shoplifters unless he has probable cause. (Id.) Lowe's employees, on the other hand, are not permitted to stop or detain shoplifters. (Id. at PageID 937.)

Lowe's does not pay Officer Gibson directly for his special duty services. (Id. at PageID 128.) Instead, payment is made to the Columbus Division of Police, Officer Gibson's employer. Lowe's has never trained Officer Gibson nor provided him with an employee handbook. (Id. at PageID 884.) Lowe's does not have the authority to direct the day-to-day performance of Officer Gibson's job as a police officer. (Id.) And Lowe's does not have the power to terminate Officer Gibson. (Id.)

B. The First Incident.

On January 9, 2021, Plaintiff, along with his companion, Ms. Renchen, entered the Store with the purpose of purchasing paint and popcorn. (Muhammad Dep., ECF No. 56-2, PageID 1180.) At some point during this visit, a Lowe's employee noticed Plaintiff's companion, a white female, and asked Officer Gibson to watch her because she resembled someone who had stolen from Lowe's in the past. (Id., PageID 1181; Gibson Dep., ECF No. 52-1, PageID 808.) Gibson did as instructed. (Gibson Dep., ECF No. 52-1, PageID 810.)

4

Plaintiff eventually noticed Officer Gibson toward the back of the Store, clad in his police uniform, looking in his direction for several minutes. (Muhammad Dep., ECF No. 56-2, PageID 1180; Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-1, PageID 14.) Feeling uncomfortable given Officer Gibson's presence, Plaintiff decided to approach Officer Gibson and speak to him. (Muhammad Dep., ECF No. 56-2, PageID 1181.) Officer Gibson stated to Plaintiff that his companion looked like someone who had previously shoplifted at the Store. (Id.; Gibson Dep., ECF No. 52-1, PageID 808.)

Plaintiff interpreted Officer Gibson's statement concerning Ms. Renchen's likeness to a past shoplifter as an accusation of shoplifting against Plaintiff himself. (Muhammad Dep., ECF No. 56-2, PageID 1181 (“Like, she's with me. If she look like it, then I'm, -- you saying that I'm [shoplifting], we in this” together.) This prompted Plaintiff to go to speak with a Lowe's manager and request proof of the alleged shoplifting or, in the alternative, direct Officer Gibson to “stop staring at them and following them around the store in an intimidating way.” (Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-1, PageID 15.) The unidentified Lowe's manager did not provide Plaintiff with any video of his interaction with Officer Gibson. (Muhammad Dep., ECF No. 56-2, PageID 1182.)

Neither Lowe's nor Officer Gibson suspected or accused Plaintiff of shoplifting, and Officer Gibson never detained or arrested Plaintiff for any crime. (Gibson Dep., ECF No. 52-1, PageID 918-20; Joint Mot. Sanctions, ECF No. 39-1, PageID 441-42.) Following his interaction with the unidentified Lowe's manager, Plaintiff proceeded to complete his purchase and leave the Store. (Muhammad Dep., ECF No. 56-2, PageID 1181.)

C. The Second Incident.

About one month after the first incident, on February 7, 2021, Plaintiff and Ms. Renchen had another encounter with Officer Gibson at the Store. (IAB Investigation, ECF No. 18-2, PageID 189.) This incident occurred while Plaintiff and Ms. Renchen were shopping for popcorn.

5

(Muhammad Dep., ECF No. 54-1, PageID 1014-15.) While walking past the aisle in which Plaintiff and Ms. Renchen were shopping, Officer Gibson allegedly “placed his elbow on a bucket and began watching the plaintiff and his companion shop.” (Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-1, PageID 15.) Plaintiff again took issue with Officer Gibson's presence and again approached Officer Gibson. (Id.)

Unlike the first incident, however, Plaintiff recorded this incident with his cell phone and has produced the recording. (Video 2, ECF No. 30.) The video depicts a brief conversation between Plaintiff and Officer Gibson: Plaintiff asks Officer Gibson for his name; Officer Gibson complies. (Id.) Plaintiff tells Officer Gibson that he does not “want to get shot in the back again,”^[1] and then clarifies that he has never actually been shot in the back. (Id.) Officer Gibson then asks about Plaintiff's mother's house.^[2] (Id.)

The recording continues, and Plaintiff can be heard complaining to a Lowe's manager about Officer Gibson's conduct. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff complains that Officer Gibson (1) has accused Plaintiff of stealing from the Store, (2) is bothering Plaintiff while he shops, (3) suspects Plaintiff of shoplifting, and (4) made an insensitive remark concerning Plaintiff's mother's house. (Id.) In response to Plaintiff's complaints, the Lowe's employee indicates that Plaintiff can “just walk away and go buy the popcorn.” (Id.)

Plaintiff eventually walked away without purchasing any items. (Muhammad Dep., ECF No. 54-1, PageID 1015.)

6

D. The Third Incident.

On an unspecified date following the first two incidents, Plaintiff and his son went to the Store to pick up several doors that Plaintiff ordered online. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-1, PageID 14-15.) Plaintiff noticed Officer Gibson standing in the paint aisle, and Officer Gibson noticed Plaintiff. (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff claims that he went to a manager of the Store and requested Officer Gibson's removal from the area. (Id.) Plaintiff then alleges that the manager offered to retrieve any items that Plaintiff needed. (Id.) Officer Gibson did not speak with Plaintiff during this incident. (Gibson Dep., ECF No. 52-2, PageID 107.) Plaintiff recorded a portion of this incident, which consists of Plaintiff filming a stationary Officer Gibson and his narration. (Video 4, ECF No. 30.)

E. Plaintiff's Claims.

As a result of the incidents described above, Plaintiff brought the instant action against Defendants. (See generally, Am. Compl. ECF No. 1-1.) While Plaintiff's claims are not specifically set forth in his...